Well. we should clean up our APIs now that we are on Java 8 and probably 11. For example, delete org.apache.logging.log4j.util.Supplier and use java.util.function.Supplier. Fold all interfaces and classes postfixed with "2" into their superclass. All of this will break BC which is what a major version change allows us to do. All of this means a new package name and Maven coordinates to avoid jar hell.
Gary On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:01 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > We would only need to do that if the versions are incompatible. Maven > won’t let you have two versions of log4j-api or log4j-core. > > Ralph > > > On Dec 30, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Another thing for 3.0 is when to change the package name so you can have > > 2.x and 3.x in the same class loader without things blowing left and > right. > > Just like you can have 1.x and 2.x at the same time. > > > > Gary > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 14:47 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > >> If we are going to deprecate them we need to announce that in the next > >> release. I know JSONLayout is being used because we have people > complain > >> about it. If we do that we should have at least 6 months before 3.0 is > >> released and 2.x and 3.0 are going to both be active for a while. > >> > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Dec 30, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> My motivation for dropping these modules are not merely due to the new > >>> JsonTemplateLayout, though rather reducing the maintenance burden. I > >>> "hypothesise" they are not used. For one, I cannot imagine a single use > >>> case for YAML layout. Second, AbstractJacksonLayout renders stack > traces > >> in > >>> a nested fashion — i.e., nested objects for JsonLayout, nested XML > >> elements > >>> for XmlLayout. Such arbitrarily nested structures are difficult to > >> interact > >>> with and no storage engine that I know of is able to index them > >>> sufficiently. Hence, given the way stack traces are rendered, I am > pretty > >>> confident that nobody is looking at them. > >>> > >>> If there is anybody out there using JsonLayout, I presume they can > easily > >>> migrate to JsonTemplateLayout without breaking a sweat. If we receive > >>> complaints regarding XML and YAML layouts, we can re-introduce them > >> easily. > >>> 3.0.0 release is a good opportunity to deprecate these modules. > Otherwise > >>> we will need to maintain them for another ~5 years. > >>> > >>> @Gary, is it possible for you to figure out who was using XmlLayout? > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:38 AM Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Volkan, I am fine with deleting those modules however that would > require > >>>> that you make sure that you replace the existing Layouts with ones > that > >> use > >>>> JsonTemplateLayout templates, take the same configuration parameters > and > >>>> produce the same results. > >>>> > >>>> In other words, when people move from 2.x to 3.x we want to minimize > the > >>>> changes they have to make to their applications. All existing > >>>> configurations should continue to work. Custom Plugins should require > >>>> recompilation but nothing more. Hopefully that would cover 95% of our > >> users. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 29, 2020, at 2:52 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> I propose deleting all the following 4 modules from master: > >>>>> > >>>>> log4j-layout-jackson > >>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-json > >>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-xml > >>>>> log4j-layout-jackson-yaml > >>>>> > >>>>> The most (only?) used one, JsonLayout, is, IMHO, superseded by > >>>>> JsonTemplateLayout. The rest, I believe, is not even used. If we > happen > >>>> to > >>>>> receive requests, we can consider adding them again. Thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> Kind regards. > >>>>> > >>>>> *P.S.* No, I did not forget about the report on Online Drinks #1. I > >> will > >>>> do > >>>>> that sometime this week. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > >
